AAP: pressing the self-destruct button?

History tells us that one-man political outfits soon degenerate into feudalistic family fiefdoms and, worse, tyrannies. Is this what the AAP aspires to be?

Way back in 2011, when Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement took the national capital by storm, a wave of seemingly unrealistic optimism had gripped the nation. The change seemed to be in the air. The crowd swelled to such proportions that it appeared that a sort of bloodless coup a la the Glorious Revolution was in the offing. Nothing of that sort happened, of course. However, it was not a failure either for it set into motion certain politico-administrative initiatives that resulted in the Lokpal Bill – no matter how toothless and delayed it eventually might have appeared to be. But, at least, the common folks had realized their power to engender reforms through the building of strong, almost irresistible, public opinion. 

Although Anna Hazare claimed that his movement was apolitical – considering his track record, there was no reason to doubt his claims – certain powerful political impulses were generated. These impulses eventually resulted in the Aam Aadmi Party’s formation, which caught the nation’s imagination and was looked upon as a credible counterweight to the rising nationalistic tide under Narendra Modi.

Already, there was talk of the AAP becoming the new Congress Party. However, realistically speaking, the AAP was really a bunch of political novices that stood no chance against the well organized, cadre based, BJP. Yet, in the Delhi Assembly elections, the AAP replaced the Indian National Congress as a powerful rival to the BJP. Yet, it was the BJP that emerged as winner in the subsequent General Elections. AAP could not win a seat anywhere in the country, except the four in Punjab. Still, the party’s idealistic credentials were not doubted. Dismissed as a neo-ultra-leftist by the political observers, the AAP made a strong comeback in 2015 and appeared invincible with its 67/70 score. 

But, this invincibility now appears to be a  mere chimera wrought by the unexpectedly overwhelming majority in the Delhi State Assembly. In fact, this majority is now proving to be a curse as it is becoming difficult to accommodate variegated competing interests. 

The hitherto simmering resentment against Kejriwal has burst forth. The Yadav-Bhushan rebellion may have been quelled for the time being, but there is no guarantee that this will not happen again – and successfully too. Therefore, on the one hand, the party will have to look at its structure and, on the other, examine its ideological moorings. Although, in hindsight, it was easy for the AAP to be all things to all sections of the Delhi electorate, it will now need to define its ideological underpinnings unambiguously. Is it a pro-poor ultra-leftist party? Or, a middle-class centrist-reformist outfit that would pitch itself against the rightist-nationalist BJP? It cannot be both leftist and middle-class, for the simple reason that today leftist shibboleths do not appeal to our aspiring middleclass youth, and the ideology itself is an anathema to them. Therefore, it will have to position itself as a reformist-centrist party. 

But reforms and populism do not go together. This is the paradox that the AAP needs to resolve. This does not mean that it has to choose between its voting classes. It, however, will have to stop selling unrealistic dreams to the poor. Instead, it must come up with a vision statement that would accommodate realistic long-term aspirations of all sections of the society. The sop-culture must be discarded – the sooner the better.

There is a need for the party to understand that it cannot ignore its stalwarts, like Kejriwal’s supporters appear to be doing. Both Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav are leaders of substance. Their contribution towards the AAP party’s formation and growth has been immense. The fact that a sense of disenchantment has prompted the current infighting should be taken seriously by the party leaders. It will not be in the AAP’s interests to have a single leader as its helmsman. It must come good on its oft-repeated promises of being a party-with-a-difference that prides itself on internal democracy. In fact, when Shazia Ilmi had left the party, it should have been taken as a wake-up call, prompting a close look at the party’s functioning. Competing ambitions should not be quelled, but used to add vibrancy to the party’s performance. 

Internal democracy is more than mere debates and airing of criticisms. It is about formation and execution of the party’s policies and programmes on the basis of consensus arrived at through a transparently democratic process. History tells us that one-man political outfits soon degenerate into feudalistic family fiefdoms and, worse, tyrannies. 

Is this what the AAP aspires to be?